The Lords must haltthis draconian plan

Nobody believes more fervently thanthe Mail in the importance of protecting members of the security services who risk their lives for our country.

Nor is anyone more appalled to see terrorist suspects granted hugecompensation payments, agreed out of court because the Government believes contesting their claims in public would put witnesses or their contacts in danger.

But as this paper has passionately argued, security considerations can be no justification for the draconian clampdown on open court hearings proposed in a Bill now going through the Lords.

11 women and one man argue they were tricked into sexual relationships by undercover agents, and are sueing the Metropolitan Police for damages, including childcare costs

On rare occasions, there may be reasons for hearing some evidence in secret – as the existing law permits.

There may even be an argument (though nobody has made it convincingly) for allowing truly exceptional civil actions to be tried wholly behind closed doors, with claimants represented by security-vettedSpecial Advocates.

But what is 100 per cent clear is that if any such decisions are to be made, they should be left to the discretion of judges – not to the diktat of the Government, as the Bill effectively proposes.

Indeed, it is as certain as night follows day that if the authorities are offered the chance to hush up evidence which is merely embarrassing to them, they will seize it every time.

Share this article

Share

To confirm this, look no further than Scotland Yard’s contemptible demandfor a secret hearing of the case brought by 11 women and one man against undercover police, whom they accuse of deceiving them into sexual relationships.

If this is how officers behave when they infiltrate environmentalist groups, hasn’t the public the right to know?

Six months ago, much to his credit, Kenneth Clarke accepted the Mail’sargument that inquests should be excluded from his plans for secret justice.

At the time, he also appeared to concede that judges should have the final say in deciding which civil cases, if any, should be heard behind closed doors.

This Bill tells a different story. In the name of British justice, which must beseen to be done, the Lords should hold the Government to Mr Clarke’s word – or, better still, throw out the Bill altogether.

Aid down the drain

In a blistering report, a parliamentary watchdog finds a £230million aid project for Nigerian schools has produced ‘no major improvement in pupil learning’.

And no wonder. On a visit to a typical rural school, funded by British taxpayers, an inspector from the Independent Commission on Aid Impact found almost no teachers had turned up for work, leaving pupils to play football all day.

Elsewhere, trainee teachers had given up their courses because state officials had failed to release scholarship money.

Indeed, everywhere the researchers looked, they found appalling waste.

Yet despite the ever-mounting reports of corruption and incompetence, theDepartment for International Development is to give the country£1billion over the next four years, from its fast-growing – and ring-fenced – budget.

How much more evidence do ministers need before they stop squandering our money abroad, to no effect, when it has never been more needed at home?

Rein in the power firms

With gas and electricity prices set to soar at the onset of winter, it can only be welcome that ministers hope to simplify tariffs and force suppliers to switch homes automatically to the lowest available.

The Mail will reserve judgment on the scheme, however, until we see concrete evidence that it truly protects hard-pressed families against the unscrupulous rapacity of the energy companies.